Comments about ‘Gov. Herbert has not signed off on $2 million price tag to defend Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 29 2013 10:59 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

One of the most important issues here, in my opinion, is that ONE activist judge overturned a vote in an election, and that vote was for traditional marriage between a man and a woman which passed by 66% of Utah voters. He also with the swipe of his pen defied the same provision in the Utah Constitution. If this is not challenged, the judicial activist court can change ANYTHING without regard to what the majority of the public wants and votes by common consent. Our basic freedom and liberty are thus at peril. What price is freedom?

jimhale
Eugene, OR

Constitutionally, this is not about child bearing. At least, it seems clear that argument will not sway the high court.

This needs to be appealed as unnecessary because homosexuals can already avail themselves of a traditional marriage any time they chose to go out and find someone of the opposite sex to marry them.

Homosexuality has not been proven to be an immutable trait like race. It deserves no equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

While some homosexuals believe that they were born with same sex attraction, others have loudly bragged for a generation that their lifestyle is a choice. We believed them then; we should believe them now.

"God made me this way" is an age-old false argument asserted (by perpetrators and their family and friends) to excuse a wide variety of social behaviors - many of which are still illegal - none of which we should elevate to the status of a "right".

The Governor of Utah should not be like the corrupt officials of California who refused to appeal Measure 8 - the majority view of voters - to the Supreme Court. He should okay the money.

Ranch
Here, UT

@boatersteve;

Your argument applies equally to infertile heterosexal couples who cannot produce children without outside help. Whats more, it applies to elderly couples who can't procreate at all.

That argument is a fail from start to finish.

@vidottsen;

Another "churches will be forced to marry gays" argument. What about the freedom of the religions that WANT to perform same-sex marriages? Don't they count? Is their religious freedom inconsequential to you?

@ulvegaard;

The LDS church sees a moral conflict here, they'll lose out on the money.

@bc5;

1,) History of discrimination. Check.
2.) Ability to contribute to society. Check. (we pay taxes and perform all kinds of service).
3.) Immutability. Check. Have you tried changing your sexuality?
4.) Relative Political Powerlessness. Again Check (did Utah and 30+ other states NOT vote away our rights?)

@Neanderthal;

Simply "walking away from the relationship" can be pretty devastating too, you know.\

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ bc5: Judge Shelby did examine the requirements for strict scrutiny, but his decision was based on rational basis review. Not meeting the requirements of strict scrutiny will not change the decision.

In order for Utah to win, Utahneeds to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers the goal of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual couples bearing biological children or, conversely, that allowing same-sex marriage would negatively affect those goals.

They admitted to Judge Shelby that they have no proof of either of those. Nor were they able to explain why some couples who will lot or cannot have children are allowed to marry while others aren't.

vidottsen
Payson, UT

Dear Quaker: Regarding if I would be happy if all marriages would be allowed, personally it does not bother me nor make me sad or angry that those with same-sex attraction want to marry. What I am worried about is where this will lead. It seems to me that just being able to marry might not satisfy those who advocate the practice. There might be another far-reaching agenda and that is to vilify those of us who feel it is an immoral act and would seek to make it illegal to prohibit such a ceremony in our places of worship. If that situation does not occur, then yes, I would be happy.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

I am all for the Sutherland Institute paying for the defense of amendment 3. If they are willing to throw their money away let them do so. It will be a win-win because the lawsuit would most likely go all the way to the supreme court and then all same sex marriage bans in the entire country would be struck down and the Sutherland Institute will have 2 million or so less dollars to persecute their dissenters at home. If Utah follows through with the appeal we will be known as the state that made same sex marriage possible for the whole country. Maybe if some hadn't contributed so much time and money to denying Californians and Hawaiian's their marriage rights then equal marriage wouldn't have come to Utah so quickly. As you sow, so shall you reap.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The current staff at the AG's can do this without outside counsel. The $2 million could be spent better elsewhere, like beefing up the state's air monitoring system, a critical need.

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

Spending money to defend a law voted for by the majority is not a waste. For the billions spent by the state each year 2 million for a one time project is not that significant. When a federal judge overturns a highly politically charged state law I expect the state to push back. I also expect my state government to make the best case possible. Spend the money governor and know that regardless of the outcome you gave it your best to represent the people of the state.

rondonaghe
Mesilla/USA, NM

Directed to: vidottsen
Payson, UT
"The larger issue is not to deny consenting adults their desire to be legally united, but rather what this may lead governments [to] dictate to religions what they can and cannot include within their own rules and doctrine. How long will it take for the government to say that the LDS church must include same-sex marriage in its temples? Do we allow one set of beliefs or standards to abolish the freedom of religion, freedom to practice religion the way it has been established?"

Your argument holds that your religious beliefs is the standard by which civil authority should operate. We have separation of church and state. Your religion should have no bearing on whether LGBTs can have the same rights as you. Your religion is your business, but it is not a standard upon which my rights to marry whom I love should be dictated.

And no...there will not come a time when the government dictates that religions have to sanctify same sex marriage. You've got it exactly reversed.

docport1
,

Spend the money on schools. Utah doesn't have to prove they are the Vatican of Mormonism.

Cowboy Dude
SAINT GEORGE, UT

Of the 18 states with legal same-sex marriage only THREE were approved by the people; Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

10 states had laws voted by the people banning same-sex marriages that were overturned by the Federal Court or their own legislature. (Yet, are no longer counted as opposed to the new marriage laws.)

3 out of 51 states and districts is hardly a changing of popular opinion.

Federalism rules.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

I'd like to see the $2million used to require same-sex couples to undergo reparative therapies before obtaining a civl marriage license. One people saw how many people have changed or had their same-sex attractions diminish, the civil marriage idea would become pretty much a non-issue for them.

jonjon
Cedar Hills, UT

Money well spent indeed. Immorality doesn't improve society (that goes for heteros too). Families do. It may be a losing battle, but I want to show what side I'm on. Let's not kid ourselves and think that this money would go elsewhere to help clean the air or something.

bradleyc
Layton, UT

I keep reading comment about how we will be seen in the eyes of others around the world if we fight this ruling. I think it is more important how we will be seen if we don't fight the ruling.
There are really thick black lines when it comes to homosexual behavior and allowance for the justification for such behavior through the bonds of marriage. If we don't stand up, say no on fight this we will pay dearly as time goes on. We read in scripture to love the sinner but hate the sin. We should continue to have this in mind as we move forward. I know many great people who have chosen to lead homosexual lives. I know many great people who have chosen poorly in other areas. We all have our temptations and vices. We as a society much choose to have laws, statutes, rights and privileges that promote good behaviors rather than behaviors that are condemned by the almighty.

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

IMHO the judge acted poorly. The 10th ammendment clearly states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the states to decide. The state decided what the legal definition of marriage was to be, and put it into the Utah Constitution.

Now, the judge used the 14th ammendment to justify his decision.

So, the question is what is the supreme law? We have the the Utah constitution vs. federal law? We won't even go into what "equal protections under the law" means with regard to marriage.

So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments? If we go with the idea that Federal Law trumps all, then why is the DEA ignoring all of the states passing laws that violate federal law?

To "The Real Maverick" you are ignoring the amount of money that the gays cost the government for their "frivolous" lawsuit.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"So what is the right thing here. Do we go with the US Constitutinally backed Utah ammendment that defines marriage, or do we go with the idea that federal law trumps all state laws including constitutional ammendments?"

----------

Please read the whole constitution.

Here is the Supremacy clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding."

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

Not a good idea to use tax money to support or oppose a divisive measure. A better idea would be to donate to the causes which you value most. This would be like legalized plunder to the minority who view gay marriage as okay.

Now lets say we are in Washington or another liberal state and the roles were reversed. Would many of the conservatives on this board be in favor of having your tax dollars collected to defend gay marriage?

Leave this to the organizations and to the courts.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

As soon as liberals fight for polygamists right to marry then I will be a little more open to their claims [that] they are fighting discrimination..."

This liberal, while not "fighting" for anyone's right to marry, has no problem with polygamy as long as it is done within the same strictures as any other marriage. I.e., consenting partners of legal age and not committing welfare fraud to get by. If it was good enough for the biblical patriarchs, it should be good enough for our standards of morality.

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

Try asking a law professor from anywhere but Utah how badly this case was mishandled. Apparently the Utah AG's office has no one with a clue about federal appellate procedure. If you want to ask the District Court judge for a stay, you do that first. He still has the case. If you want to bypass him and go directly to the Circuit Court of Appeals, you first have to appeal, to get the case moved to its jurisdiction. They're likely to wonder why you didn't ask the District Court judge first. Then, when you finally have your paperwork in order and the Circuit Court of Appeals turns you down, it's not a good idea to dally for a week, while all the same-sex couples get married, before going to the Supreme Court to claim that irreparable harm is being done if they don't act right away.

Where are all the people who helped finance Prop 8 in California? They should have chipped in for competent lawyers, back when it might have made a difference.

Veritas Aequitas
Fruit Heights, UT

I see no need to spend $2 million on outside attorneys when it is obvious that we have so many well qualified Constitutional attorneys here posting on the Des News board. Hey, we even have a few Declaration of Independence attorneys. Also those giving their personal interpretation of The Constitution... Let's get them together and go present the case to the Supreme Court. Sprinkle in a few moral observations and scriptures, a few statistics on the ability of same-sex couples ability to reproduce and this looks like an easy slam dunk.

If Chris B is OK with spending the money, I see it as a done deal. We all know that he speaks many times on behalf of the PAC, The University of Utah, and the University of Utah fan base. Yep, this is a battle that the State of Utah will win! Mark it down!!!

Utah's continued effort to "define" marriage our way is money well spent.

After this battle, can we spend a ton of money to have phone spelled fone? That has always bugged me.

Props to those who have tried to help educate the masses citing case law.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments